Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
federal and commercial contracting and
financing opportunities, the size of the
market, and the need for MBDA
resources in the applicant’s defined
service area should also be discussed. (5
Points)
4. Proposed Budget and Supporting
Budget Narrative (20 Points)
The applicant’s proposal will be
evaluated on the following sub-criteria:
• Reasonableness, allowability and
allocability of costs (5 points). MBDA
anticipates that 75% of the funding
level will be allocated to key staff, such
as the Executive Director and senior
business development persons.
• Proposed cost sharing of 30 percent
is required and must be documented,
including whether client fees for
brokering will be charged and applied to
the cost share. Applicants choosing to
charge fees should set forth a fee
schedule in their proposals (5 points).
• Performance-based Budget. Discuss
how the budget is related to the
accomplishment of the work
requirements and the Performance
measures. Provide a budget narrative
that clearly shows the connections. (10
points)
• Non Federal Cost sharing exceeding
30 percent that is related to additional
staff (5) bonus points).
Intergovernmental Review
Applications under this program are
not subject to Executive Order 12372,
‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.’’
Limitation of Liability
Applicants are hereby given notice
that funds have not yet been
appropriated for this program. In no
event will MBDA or the department of
Commerce be responsible for proposal
preparation costs if this program fails to
receive funding or is cancelled because
of other agency priorities. Publication of
this announcement does not oblige
MBDA or the Department of Commerce
to award any specific project or to
obligate any available funds.
Universal Identifier
Applicant should be aware that they
may be required to provide a Dun and
Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering
system (DUNS) number during the
application process. See the June 27,
2003 (68 FR 38402) Federal Register
notice for additional information.
Organization can receive a DUNS
number at no cost by calling the
dedicated toll-free DUNS Number
request line at 1–866–705–5711 or on
MBDA’s Web site at http://
www.mbda.gov.
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
51341
Department of Commerce Pre-Award
Notification Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements
The Department of Commerce Pre-
Award Notification Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements
contained in the Federal Register notice
of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are
applicable to this solicitation.
Application Forms and Package
A completed proposal submitted by
mail, hand delivery, or electronically
consists of the following sections:
—Program Narrative;
—Budget and Budget Narrative;
—Standard Forms 424; 424A; 424B;
and SF LLL; and
lDepartment of Commerce forms
CD–346; and CD–511.
Failure to include, by the deadline, a
signed, original SF–424 with the paper
application, or separately in conjunction
with an electronically submitted
application, will result in the
application being rejected and returned
to the applicant. Failure to sign and
submit the remaining forms with the
paper application, or separately in
conjunction with an electronically
submitted application, by the deadline,
will automatically cause an application
to lose two (2) points in the overall
score. MBDA shall not accept any
changes, additions, revisions or
deletions to competitive applications
after the closing date for receiving
applications. MBDA may contact
applicants for additional clarifications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains collection-of-
information requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the use
of standard forms 424, 424A, 424B, CD
346, and SF–LLL have been approved
by OMB under the respective control
numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348–
0040, 0605–0001, and 0348–0046.
Notwithstanding any other provisions
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection displays a currently valid
OMB control Number.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of E.O.
12866.
Administrative Procedure Act/
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Prior notice for an opportunity for
public comment are not required by the
Administrative Procedure Act for rules
PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
concerning public property, loans,
grant, benefits and contracts (5 U.S.C.
533(a)(2)). Because notice and
opportunity for comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533 or any
other law, the analytical requirements of
the regulatory flexibility Act (5 U.S.C
601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore,
a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required and has not been prepared.
Dated: August 26, 2005.
Ronald J. Marin,
Financial Management Officer, Minority
Business Development Agency.
[FR Doc. 05–17233 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–21–U
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 031005B]
Small Takes of Marine Mammals
Incidental to Specified Activities; Naval
Explosive Ordnance Disposal School
training operations at Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) as amended,
notification is hereby given that NMFS
has issued an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to Eglin Air Force
Base (EAFB) to take marine mammals by
Level B harassment incidental to Naval
Explosive Ordnance Disposal School
(NEODS) training operations, which
include up to 30 detonations per year of
small C–4 charges, off Santa Rosa Island
(SRI) at EAFB.
DATES: Effective from August 1, 2005,
through July 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the
application are available by writing to
Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits,
Conservation, and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225, or by telephoning the
contact listed here. A copy of the
application containing a list of
references used in this document may
be obtained by writing to this address,
by telephoning the contact listed here
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
or online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
protlres/PR2/SmalllTake/
30AUN1
 51342 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
smalltakelinfo.htm#applications.
Documents cited in this notice may be
viewed, by appointment, during regular
business hours, at the aforementioned
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie
Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional taking of marine mammals
by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
may be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have no more than a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,
and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such
taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as:
an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected
to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of
marine mammals by harassment. The
National Defense Authorization Act of
2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108–136)
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
in section 18(A) of the MMPA as it
applies to a ‘‘military readiness activity’’
to read as follows:
(i) any act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or
is likely to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered [Level B Harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
application followed by a 30–day public
notice and comment period on any
proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of small numbers
of marine mammals. Within 45 days of
the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of
the authorization.
Summary of Request
On March 11, 2004, NMFS received
an application from EAFB, under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
requesting authorization for the
harassment of Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and
Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella
frontalis) incidental to NEODS training
operations at EAFB, Florida, in the
northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Each of
up to six missions per year would
include up to five live detonations of
approximately 5–pound (2.3–kg) net
explosive weight charges to occur in
approximately 60–ft (18.3–m) deep
water from 1–3 nm (1.9 to 5.6 km) off
shore. Because this activity will be a
multi-year activity, NMFS also plans to
develop proposed regulations for
NEODS training operations at EAFB.
Specified Activities
The mission of NEODS is to train
personnel to detect, recover, identify,
evaluate, render safe, and dispose of
unexploded ordnance (UXO) that
constitutes a threat to people, material,
installations, ships, aircraft, and
operations. The NEODS proposes to
utilize three areas within the Eglin Gulf
Test and Training Range (EGTTR),
consisting of approximately 86,000
square miles within the GOM and the
airspace above, for Mine
Countermeasures (MCM) detonations,
which involve mine-hunting and mine-
clearance operations. The detonation of
small, live explosive charges disables
the function of the mines, which are
inert for training purposes. The
proposed training would occur
approximately one to three nautical
miles (nm) (1.9 to 5.6 km) offshore of
SRI six times annually, at varying times
within the year.
Each of the six training classes would
include one or two ‘‘Live Demolition
Days.’’ During each set of Live
Demolition Days, five inert mines would
be placed in a compact area on the sea
floor in approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) of
water. Divers would locate the mines by
hand-held sonars. The AN/PQS–2A
acoustic locator has a sound pressure
level (SPL) of 178.5 re 1 microPascal at
1 meter and the Dukane Underwater
Acoustic Locator has a SPL of 157–160.5
re 1 microPascal at 1 meter. Because
these sonar ranges are below any current
PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
threshold for protected species, noise
impacts are not anticipated and are not
addressed further in this analysis.
Five charges packed with five lbs (2.3
kg) of C–4 explosive material will be set
up adjacent to each of the mines. No
more than five charges will be detonated
over the 2–day period. Detonation times
will begin no earlier than 2 hours after
sunrise and end no later than 2 hours
before dusk and charges utilized within
the same hour period will have a
maximum separation time of 20
minutes. Mine shapes and debris will be
recovered and removed from the water
when training is completed. A more
detailed description of the work
proposed for 2005 and 2006 is
contained in the application which is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Military Readiness Activity
NEODS supports the Naval Fleet by
providing training to personnel from all
four armed
services, civil officials, and military
students from over 70 countries. The
NEODS facility supports the Department
of Defense Joint Service Explosive
Ordnance Disposal training mission.
The Navy and the Marine Corps believe
that the ability of Sailors and Marines to
detect, characterize, and neutralize
mines from their operating areas at sea,
on the shore, and inland, is vital to their
doctrines.
The Navy believes that an array of
transnational, rogue, and subnational
adversaries now pose the most
immediate threat to American interests.
Because of their relative low cost and
ease of use, mines will be among the
adversaries’ weapons of choice in
shallow-water situations, and they will
be deployed in an asymmetrical and
asynchronous manner. The Navy needs
organic means to clear mines and
obstacles rapidly in three challenging
environments: shallow water; the surf
zone; and the beach zone. The Navy also
needs a capability for rapid clandestine
surveillance and reconnaissance of
minefields and obstacles in these
environments. The NEODS mission in
the GOM offshore of EAFB is considered
a military readiness activity pursuant to
the NDAA (Public Law 108–136).
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt of the EAFB
application and proposed IHA was
published in the Federal Register on
June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33122). During the
comment period, NMFS received
comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission) and one
individual.
Comment 1: The Commission notes
that the proposed weapons test appears
30AUN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
to fit within the definition of a ‘‘military
readiness activity’’ as defined in section
315(f) of Public Law 107–314, which
includes ‘‘the adequate and realistic
testing of military equipment, vehicles,
weapons, and sensors for proper
operation and suitability for combat
use.’’ As such, the revised definition of
harassment adopted in the NDAA
(Public Law 108–136) would seem to be
applicable in this instance. However,
NMFS’ analysis of the small take request
does not seem to have employed this
definition. If NMFS’ preliminary
conclusion that ‘‘no take by serious
injury and/or death is anticipated, and
the potential for temporary or
permanent hearing impairment is low
and will be avoided through the
incorporation of (proposed) mitigation
measures is correct, it may be that no
taking by harassment can be expected
and that no authorization is needed. The
Commission therefore recommends that
NMFS analyze the request for an IHA
and the small take regulations being
contemplated in light of the applicable
definition of the term ‘‘harassment.’’
Although the Commission appreciates
NMFS has yet to promulgate regulations
or take other steps to implement the
new definition, the statutory change
cannot be ignored.
Response: In the preamble to the
notice of proposed authorization and in
this document, NMFS cited the NDAA
definition of Level B harassment for
military readiness activities. While
NMFS believes that the monitoring to be
implemented by EAFB will ensure that
Level A harassment or mortality is
highly unlikely, an authorization under
section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA is
warranted because some animals could
be injured (estimate is 0.4 animals per
year) if the mitigation and monitoring
overlooks an animal.
Given the uncertainty associated with
predicting animal presence and
behavior in the field, NMFS accords
some deference to applicants requesting
an MMPA authorization for an activity
that might fall slightly below the NDAA
definition of harassment, so that they
are covered for impacts that may rise to
the level of take. Equally important,
such an authorization also carries with
it responsibilities to implement
mitigation and monitoring measures to
protect marine mammals.
Comment 2: The Commission remains
concerned that NMFS assessment of
potential harassment levels fails to
apply the statutory definition of
‘‘harassment’’ in the MMPA. It is the
Commission’s view that an across-the-
board definition of temporary threshold
shift (TTS) as constituting no more than
Level B Harassment inappropriately
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
dismisses possible injury and
biologically significant behavioral
effects to the affected animals.
Response: As mentioned in previous
Federal Register documents, second
level impacts due to a marine mammal
having a temporary hearing impairment
cannot be predicted and are, therefore,
speculative. The principal reason that
second level impacts are not considered
in classification is that any Level B
disruption of behavior could, with
suppositions, be seen as potentially
dangerous and, therefore, considered
potential Level A harassment or even
lethal. Similarly, Level A injuries could
be seen as being accompanied by some
disruption of behavior and, therefore,
Level B disturbances as well as Level A
injuries. Such reasoning blurs the
distinctions that the definitions of
harassment attempt to make. NMFS
believes that Level B harassment, if of
sufficient degree and duration, can be
very serious and require consideration,
as has been done here. Moderate TTS
does not necessarily mean that the
animal cannot hear, only that its
threshold of hearing is raised above its
normal level. The extent of time that
this impairment remains is dependent
upon the amount of initial threshold
shift which in turn depends on the
strength of the received sound and
whether the TTS is in a frequency range
that the animal depends on for receiving
cues that would benefit survival. It
should be noted that increased ambient
noise levels, due to biologics, storms,
shipping, and tectonic events may also
result in short-term decreases in an
animal’s ability to hear normally. NMFS
scientists believe that marine mammals
have likely adopted behavioral
responses, such as decreased spatial
separation, slower swimming speeds,
and cessation of socialization to
compensate for increased ambient noise
or shifts in hearing threshold levels.
Ship strikes of whales by large vessels
suggest that at least certain species of
large whales do not use vessel sounds
to avoid interactions. Also, there is no
indication that smaller whales and
dolphins with TTS would modify
behavior significantly enough to be
struck by an approaching vessel.
Finally, a hypothesis that marine
mammals would be subject to increased
predation presumes that the predators
would either not be similarly affected by
the detonation or would travel from
areas outside the impact zone,
indicating recognition between the
signal of a single detonation at distance
and potentially debilitated food sources.
Therefore, NMFS does not believe the
evidence warrants that all (or an
unknown percentage) of the estimated
PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
51343
numbers of Level B harassment be
considered as Level A harassment or as
potential mortalities.
Comment 3: The Commission believes
that NMFS needs to provide a better
explanation of, and justification for,
using the dual criteria established for
determining non-lethal injury (i.e., the
onset of slight lung hemorrhage and a 50
percent probability for eardrum
rupture).
Response: Explanation and
justification were provided in detail in
both the SEAWOLF and CHURCHILL
Final EISs (DoN 1998 and DoN 2001).
An updated summary for using the dual
injury criteria from those documents
was provided in a recent Federal
Register notice, published August 19,
2005, announcing the issuance of an
IHA for the Navy’s Precision Strike
Weapons.
Comment 4: The Commission states
that defining Level B acoustic
harassment from explosive detonation
events in terms off TTS exclusively (i.e.,
behavioral changes related to temporary
hearing impairment), like NMFS does,
implies that behavioral changes not
related to TTS would not constitute
harassment as defined in the MMPA,
which is inconsistent with the term
‘‘harassment’’ as it is defined generally
in the MMPA.
Response: NMFS justification for the
way Level B Harassment is defined as
related to explosive detonations is
addressed in detail in a recent Federal
Register notice, published August 19,
2005, announcing the issuance of an
IHA for the Navy’s Precision Strike
Weapons.
Comment 5: The Commission believes
that additional clarification and
justification is needed concerning the
threshold for ‘‘non-injurious behavioral
response’’ proposed in the application
(6 dB below TTS (i.e., 176 dB re 1
microPa2-sec).
Response: Based on the science used
to develop the CHURCHILL criteria, for
single detonations a significant response
by a marine mammal is not expected to
occur other than by TTS. As noted in
the proposed authorization, NEODS
training operations consist of six
training sessions a year, and each
session consists of five single small
detonations over the course of 2 days.
Due to the infrequent test events, the
potential variability in target locations,
and the continuous movement of marine
mammals in the GOM, NMFS does not
anticipate sub-TTS behavioral
modification because the same animal
will not be repeatedly exposed. The
discussion in the application and
Federal Register notice is relevant to
actions involving multiple detonations.
30AUN1
 51344 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
NMFS will address comments on this
threshold criterion in an applicable
proposed IHA application with multiple
detonations.
Comment 6: The Commission believes
that NMFS should provide a better
explanation of and justification for
using the 23 psi criterion (versus 12 psi)
for estimating the TTS pressure
threshold.
Response: This issue remains under
review by the Navy, the U.S. Air Force
and NMFS. Navy acousticians believe
that Ketten (1995), which summarized
earlier acoustic research, does not fully
support using a 12–psi peak pressure
threshold for TTS for underwater
explosion impacts on marine mammals
from small detonations. The original
basis in Ketten (1995) for the use of the
12–psi threshold for the SEAWOLF and
CHURCHILL actions (which were
10,000 lb (4,536 kg) detonations) is the
use of a combination of in-air and in-
water peak pressure measurements
without adjustment for the medium. A
re-examination of the basis for the 12–
psi threshold by Navy acousticians
indicates that, for underwater
explosions of small charges, a higher
threshold may be warranted. This led
the Navy and Eglin to suggest scaling 12
psi for small charges, which was used
in the proposed authorization notice
and analysis. Although this issue
remains under review by NMFS and the
Navy for future rulemaking actions, as
an interim criterion for this IHA and for
the Navy Precision Strike Weapon
(PSW) IHA, NMFS is adopting the
experimental findings of Finneran et al.
(2002) that TTS can be induced at a
pressure level of 23 psi (at least in
belugas). As explained here, this is
considered conservative since a 23–psi
pressure level was below the level that
induced TTS in bottlenose dolphins.
Finneran et al. (2000; as described in
Finneran et al. (2002)) conducted a
study designed to measure masked TTS
(MTTS) in bottlenose dolphins and
belugas exposed to single underwater
impulses. This study used an
‘‘explosion simulator’’ (ES) to generate
impulsive sounds with pressure
waveforms resembling those produced
by distant underwater explosions. No
substantial (i.e., 6 dB or larger)
threshold shifts were observed in any of
the subjects (two bottlenose dolphins
and 1 beluga) at the highest received
level produced by the ES:
approximately 70 kPa (10 psi) peak
pressure, 221 dB re re 1 micro Pa peak-
to-peak (pk-pk) pressure, and 179 dB re
1 microPa2–s total EFD. In Finneran et
al. (2002), a watergun was substituted
for the ES because it is capable of
producing impulses with higher peak
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
pressures and total energy fluxes than
the pressure waveforms produced using
the ES. It was also preferable to other
seismic sources because its impulses
contain more energy at higher
frequencies, where odontocete hearing
thresholds are relatively low (i.e., more
sensitive). Hearing thresholds were
measured at 0.4, 4 and 30 kHz. MTTSs
of 7 and 6 dB were observed in the
beluga at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively,
approximately 2 minutes following
exposure to single impulses with peak
pressures of 160 kPa (23 psi), pk-pk
pressures of 226 dB re 1 microPa, and
total EFD of 186 dB re 1 microPa2–s.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of
the pre-exposure value approximately 4
minutes post exposure. No MTTS was
observed in the single bottlenose
dolphin tested at the highest exposure
conditions: peak pressure of 207 kPa (30
psi), 228 dB re 1 microPa pk-pk
pressure, and 188 dB re 1 microPa2–s
total energy flux. Therefore, until more
scientific information is obtained,
NMFS has determined that the pressure
criterion for small explosions can be
raised from 12 psi to 23 psi. At this
time, NMFS believes that setting the
pressure metric at 23 psi is conservative.
Analyses indicate that the ranges for
the 23–psi TTS metric at depths of 60
ft (18.3 m) (depth of NEODS missions)
are slightly less conservative than the
originally provided ranges for the 182–
dB (re 1 microPa2–s) TTS energy metric.
For the NEODS activity, NMFS will use
the more conservative values to
determine impacts and areas that need
to be monitored.
Comment 7: Based on the information
contained in the application and
Federal Register notice, the
Commission believes that NMFS’
preliminary determinations are
reasonable, provided that the proposed
mitigation and monitoring activities are
adequate to detect all marine mammals
in the vicinity of the proposed
operations and sufficient to ensure that
marine mammals are not being taken in
unanticipated ways or numbers. The
Commission notes however, that even
under the best of conditions and using
experienced observers, there is greater
than an 80–percent likelihood that small
cetaceans will not be observed if they
are in the vicinity of the test site. Thus,
although there may be a low probability
that certain marine mammal species
will be within the area where
mortalities are considered possible at
the time of weapon deployment, it is
unclear that the proposed monitoring
effort will be adequate to detect them if
they are present. This being the case, the
proposed monitoring activities may be
insufficient to provide assurance that
PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
marine mammals are not being exposed
to sound pressures or energy levels that
could cause lethal injuries. Thus,
NMFS, before issuing the requested
authorization, should further explain its
rationale for determining that the
takings will only be by harassment.
Response: The vessel monitoring
effort for NEODS is similar to that used
in previous Navy ship-shock actions,
with the differences being that the zone
of influence is significantly smaller and
the water is shallower, both of which
make it even more likely that a marine
animal will be detected. In these past
ship-shock actions, detonations of
10,000 lbs (4536 kg) were used without
any serious injuries or mortalities being
noted during extensive follow-up
monitoring. Though aerial surveys were
also incorporated into the ship-shock
monitoring measures, they were
considered less effective than vessel
monitoring for NEODS, and in fact, the
Navy found that detection of bottlenose
dolphins and spotted dolphins by
shipboard observers was 100 percent
(DON, 1999, Appendix C). Since, for
safety reasons, the observer vessel will
need to move out of the testing area
immediately prior to the detonation (but
will continue to monitor the ZOI), we
can probably assume that the detection
of dolphins within the ZOI is somewhat
less than 100 percent. However, since
the estimated (based on density
estimates) number of any marine
mammals that could potentially be
exposed to energy levels that may cause
Level A Harassment or death during the
course of the 30 individual detonations
per year, without any observers present,
is only 0.4, NMFS is confident that no
marine mammals will be killed as a
result of EAFB’s NEODS training
operations.
Comment 8: The Commission
recommends that, if NMFS determines
that the potential for lethal injuries is
sufficiently remote to warrant the
issuance of an authorization under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, any
such authorization explicitly require
that operations be suspended
immediately if a dead or seriously
injured animal is found in the vicinity
of the test site, pending authorization to
proceed or issuance of regulations
authorizing such takes under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
Commission’s recommendation and has
included the requirement in the IHA.
Description of Marine Mammals and
Habitat Affected by the Activity
Marine mammal species that
potentially occur within the EGTTR
include several species of cetaceans and
30AUN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
the West Indian manatee. While a few
manatees may migrate as far north as
Louisiana in the summer from southern
Florida (where there are generally
confined in the winter), they primarily
inhabit coastal and inshore waters and
rarely venture offshore. NEODS
missions are conducted at a distance of
between 1 and 3 nm (5.6 km) from shore
and effects on manatees are therefore
considered very unlikely and not
discussed further in this analysis.
Cetacean abundance estimates for the
project area are derived from GulfCet II
aerial surveys conducted from 1996 to
1998 over a 70,470 km2 area, including
nearly the entire continental shelf
region of the EGTTR, which extends
approximately 9 nm (16.7 km) from
shore. The dwarf and pygmy sperm
whales are not included in this analysis
because their potential for being found
near the project site is remote. Although
Atlantic spotted dolphins do not
normally inhabit nearshore waters, they
are included in the analysis to ensure
conservative mitigation measures are
applied. The two marine mammal
species expected to be affected by these
activities are the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) and the Atlantic
spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis).
Descriptions of the biology and local
distribution of these species can be
found in the application (see ADDRESSES
for availability), other sources such as
Wursig et al. (2000), and the NMFS
Stock Assessments, which can be
viewed at: http://www.NMFS.noaa.gov/
pr/PR2/StocklAssessmentlProgram/
sars.html.
The habitat at the NEODS test sites is
approximately 60–ft (18.3–m) deep open
water. The EGTTR contains many reefs,
both natural and artificial, but the
closest reef to the NEODS test site is an
artificial reef over 2 mi (3.2 km) away.
Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are
distributed worldwide in tropical and
temperate waters and occur in the slope,
shelf, and inshore waters of the GOM.
Based on a combination of geography
and ecological and genetic research,
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins have been
divided into many separate stocks
within the GOM. The exact structure of
these stocks is complex and continues
to be revised as research is completed.
For now, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting
waters less than 20 m (66 ft) deep in the
U.S. GOM are believed to constitute 36
inshore or coastal stocks, and those
inhabiting waters from 20 to 200 m (66
to 656 ft) deep in the northern GOM
from the U.S.-Mexican border to the
Florida Keys are considered the
continental shelf stock (Waring et al.,
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
2004). The proposed action would occur
on the ocean floor at a depth of
approximately 60 ft (18 m) and therefore
has the potential to affect both the
continental shelf and inshore stocks.
Continental shelf stock assessments
were estimated using data from vessel
surveys conducted between 1998 and
2001 (at 20– to 200–m (66– to 656–ft)
depths). The minimum population
estimate for the northern GOM
continental shelf stock of the Atlantic
bottlenose dolphin is 20,414 (Waring et
al., 2004).
The most recent inshore stock
assessment surveys were conducted
aerially in 1993 and covered the area
from the shore or bay boundaries out to
9.3 km (5.0 nm) past the 18.3 m-depth
(60.0 nm-depth) isobath (a slightly
different area than that defined as
inshore in the more recent stock
assessment above). The minimum
population estimate of the northern
GOM coastal stock of the Atlantic
bottlenose dolphin was 3,518 dolphins
(Waring et al., 1997).
Texas A&M University and the NMFS
conducted GulfCet II aerial surveys in
an area including the EGTTR from 1996
to 1998. Density estimates were
calculated using abundance data
collected from the continental shelf area
of the EGTTR. In an effort to provide
better species conservation and
protection, estimates were adjusted to
incorporate temporal and spatial
variations, surface and submerged
variations, and overall density
confidence. The adjusted density
estimate for Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins within the project area is 0.810
individuals/km2. A small number of
dolphins could not be identified
specifically as Atlantic bottlenose or
Atlantic spotted and their estimated
density was 0.053 individuals/km2.
Atlantic Spotted Dolphins
Atlantic spotted dolphins are endemic
to the tropical and warm temperate
waters of the Atlantic Ocean and can be
found from the latitude of Cape May,
New Jersey south along mainland shores
to Venezuela, including the GOM and
Lesser Antilles. In the GOM, Atlantic
spotted dolphins occur primarily in
continental shelf waters 10 to 200 m (33
to 656 ft) deep out to continental slope
waters less than 500 m (1640.4 ft) deep.
One recent study presents strong genetic
support for differentiation between
GOM and western North Atlantic
management stocks, but the Gulf of
Mexico stock has not yet been further
subdivided.
Abundance was estimated in the most
recent assessment of the northern GOM
stock of the Atlantic spotted dolphin
PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
51345
using combined data from continental
shelf surveys (20 to 200 m (66 to 656 ft)
deep) and oceanic surveys (200 m (656
ft)) to the offshore extent of U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone) conducted
from 1996 to 2001. The minimum
population estimate for the northern
GOM is 24,752 Atlantic spotted
dolphins (Waring et al., 2004).
Density estimates for the Atlantic
spotted dolphin within the EGTTR were
calculated using abundance data
collected during the GulfCet II aerial
surveys. In an effort to provide better
species conservation and protection,
estimates were adjusted to incorporate
temporal and spatial variations, surface
and submerged variations, and overall
density confidence. The adjusted
density estimate for Atlantic spotted
dolphins within the project area is 0.677
individuals/km2. A small number of
dolphins could not be identified
specifically as Atlantic bottlenose or
Atlantic spotted and their estimated
density was 0.053 individuals/km2.
Potential Effects of Activities on Marine
Mammals
The primary potential impact to the
Atlantic bottlenose and the Atlantic
spotted dolphins occurring in the
EGTTR from the proposed detonations
is Level B harassment from noise. There
is a slight potential, absent mitigation,
that a few mammals would be injured
or killed due to the energy generated
from an explosive force on the sea floor.
Analysis of NEODS noise impacts to
cetaceans was based on criteria and
thresholds presented in both Finneran
et al., 2002, and in the U.S. Navy
Environmental Impact Statements for
ship shock trials of the SEAWOLF
submarine and the WINSTON
CHURCHILL vessel and subsequently
adopted by NMFS.
Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A
Harassment) are defined in as tympanic
membrane (TM) rupture and the onset
of slight lung injury. The threshold for
Level A Harassment corresponds to a 50
percent rate of TM rupture, which can
be stated in terms of an energy flux
density (EFD) value of 205 dB re 1
microPa2s. TM rupture is well-
correlated with permanent hearing
impairment (Ketten (1998) indicates a
30–percent incidence of permanent
threshold shift (PTS) at the same
threshold). The zone of influence
(ZOI)(farthest distance from the source
at which an animal is exposed to the
EFD level referred to) for the Level A
Harassment threshold is 52.2 m (171.6
ft).
Level B (non-injurious) Harassment
includes temporary (auditory) threshold
shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of
30AUN1
 51346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
hearing sensitivity. The energy criterion
used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 microPa2’s
maximum EFD level in any 1/3–octave
band above 100 Hz for toothed whales
(e.g., dolphins). The ZOI for this
threshold is 229.8 m (754.0 ft). The
pressure criterion, 23 psi, has recently
been established by NMFS based on the
more current work of Finneran et al.,
2002. The ZOI for 23 psi is 222 m (728
ft). A detailed justification for the recent
change in NMFS’ pressure exposure
criteria may be found in the Federal
Register notice for the issuance of an
IHA to the Navy for Precision Strike
Weapons, published August 19, 2005.
Level B Harassment also includes
behavioral modifications resulting from
repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to
the same animals (usually resident) over
a relatively short period of time. No
strictly sub-TTS behavioral responses
(i.e., Level B harassment) are anticipated
with the NEODS training activities
because there are no successive
detonations (5 small detonations in the
course of 2 days, some of which may be
separated by less than 20 minutes, but
which would be in separate locations)
which could provide causation for a
behavioral disruption rising to the level
of a significant alteration or
abandonment of behavioral patterns
without also causing TTS. Also,
repetitive exposures (below TTS) to the
same resident animals are highly
unlikely due to the infrequent NEODS
training sessions (6 sessions per year),
the potential variability in target
locations, and the continuous
movement of marine mammals in the
northern GOM.
Because of mitigation measures
proposed, NMFS anticipates that only
Level B harassment will occur
incidental to the NEODS training
operations and that these events will
result in no more than a negligible
impact on marine mammal species or
their habitats.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Mitigation will consist primarily of
surveying and taking action to avoid
detonating charges when protected
species are within the ZOI. A trained,
NMFS-approved observerwill be staged
from the highest point possible on a
support ship and have proper lines of
communication to the Officer in
Tactical Command. The survey area will
be 460 m (1509 ft) in every direction
from the target, which is twice the
radius of the ZOI for Level B
Harassment (230 m (755 ft)). To ensure
visibility of marine mammals to
observers, NEODS missions will be
delayed if whitecaps cover more than 50
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
percent of the surface or if the waves are
greater than 3 feet (Beaufort Sea State 4).
Pre-mission monitoring will be used
to evaluate the test site for
environmental suitability of the
mission. Visual surveys will be
conducted 2 hours, 1 hour, and 5
minutes prior to the mission to verify
that the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)) is free of
visually detectable marine mammals,
sea turtles, large schools of fish, large
flocks of birds, large Sargassum mats, or
large concentrations of jellyfish and that
the weather is adequate to support
visual surveys. The observer will plot
and record sightings, bearing, and time
for all marine mammals detected, which
would allow the observer to determine
if the animal is likely to enter the test
area during detonation. If an animal
appears likely to enter the test area
during detonation, if marine mammals,
sea turtles, large schools of fish, large
flocks of birds, large Sargassum mats, or
large concentrations of jellyfish are
present, or if the weather is inadequate
to support monitoring, the observer will
declare the range fouled and the tactical
officer will implement a hold until
monitoring indicates that the test area is
and will remain clear of detectable
marine mammals or sea turtles.
Monitoring of the test area will
continue throughout the mission until
the last detonation is complete. The
mission would be postponed if:
(1) Any marine mammal is visually
detected within the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)).
The delay would continue until the
animal that caused the postponement is
confirmed to be outside the ZOI
(visually observed swimming out of the
range).
(2) Any marine mammal or sea turtle
is detected in the ZOI and subsequently
is not seen again. The mission would
not continue until the last verified
location is outside of the ZOI and the
animal is moving away from the mission
area.
(3) Large Sargassum rafts or large
concentrations of jellyfish are observed
within the ZOI. The delay would
continue until the Sargassum rafts or
jellyfish that caused the postponement
are confirmed to be outside of the ZOI
either due to the current and/or wind
moving them out of the mission area.
(4) Large schools of fish are observed
in the water within of the ZOI. The
delay would continue until large fish
schools are confirmed to be outside the
ZOI.
In the event of a postponement, pre-
mission monitoring would continue as
long as weather and daylight hours
allow. If a charge failed to explode,
mitigation measures would continue
while operations personnel attempted to
PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
recognize and solve the problem
(detonate the charge).
Post-mission monitoring is designed
to determine the effectiveness of pre-
mission mitigation by reporting any
sightings of dead or injured marine
mammals or sea turtles. Post-detonation
monitoring, concentrating on the area
down current of the test site, will
commence immediately following each
detonation and continue for at least two
hours after the last detonation. The
monitoring team will document and
report to the appropriate marine animal
stranding network any marine mammals
or turtles killed or injured during the
test and, if practicable, recover and
examine any dead animals. The species,
number, location, and behavior of any
animals observed by the teams would be
documented and reported to the Officer
in Tactical Command.
Reporting
EAFB will notify NMFS 2 weeks prior
to initiation of each training session.
Any takes of marine mammals other
than those authorized by the IHA, as
well as any injuries or deaths of marine
mammals, will be reported to the
Southeast Regional Administrator,
NMFS, by the next working day. A
summary of mission observations and
test results, including dates, times, and
locations of detonations as well as pre-
and post-mission monitoring
observations, will be submitted to the
Division of Permits, Conservation, and
Education, Office of Protected Resources
(NMFS) and the Southeast Regional
Office (NMFS) within 90 days after the
completion of the last training session.
Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected
to be Harassed
Estimates of the potential number of
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and
Atlantic spotted dolphins to be harassed
by the training were calculated using
the number of distinct firing or test
events (maximum 30 per year), the ZOI
for noise exposure, and the density of
animals that potentially occur in the
ZOI. The take estimates provided here
do not include mitigation measures,
which are expected to further minimize
impacts to protected species and make
injury or death highly unlikely.
The estimated number of Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic
spotted dolphins that could potentially
be exposed to the Level A Harassment
threshold (205 dB re 1 microPa2 s)
during one year is less than one (0.22
and 0.19, respectively).
For Level B Harassment, two separate
criteria were established, one expressed
in dB re 1 microPa2s maximum EFD
level in any 1/3–octave band above 100
30AUN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
Hz, and one expressed in psi. The
estimated numbers of Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic
spotted dolphins potentially exposed to
182 dB and 23 psi, during one year, if
mitigation measures were not effectively
implemented within the 230–m (754 ft)
ZOI, are 4 and 3 individuals.
Possible Effects of Activities on Marine
Mammal Habitat
The Air Force anticipates no loss or
modification to the habitat used by
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic
spotted dolphins in the EGTTR. The
primary source of marine mammal
habitat impact resulting from the
NEODS missions is noise, which is
intermittent (maximum 30 times per
year) and of limited duration. NMFS
does not anticipate that either debris
(which will be recovered following test
activities) or the minimal chemical
residue from the detonated charges will
affect marine mammal habitat.
Possible Effects of Activities on
Subsistence Needs
There are no subsistence uses for
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins Atlantic
spotted dolphins in Florida waters, and
thus, there are no anticipated effects on
subsistence needs.
Endangered Species Act
In a Biological Opinion issued on
October 25, 2004, NMFS concluded that
the NEODS training missions and their
associated actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species under
the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat that
has been designated for those species.
NMFS has issued an incidental take
statement (ITS) for 4 species of sea
turtles (leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley sea
turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta))
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The ITS contains
reasonable and prudent measures with
implementing terms and conditions to
minimize the effects of this take. This
IHA action is within the scope of the
previously analyzed action and does not
change the action in a manner that was
not considered previously.
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on the
Issuance of Authorizations to Take
Marine Mammals, by Harassment,
Incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance
Disposal School Training Operations at
VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Therefore,
preparation of an EIS on this action is
not required by section 102(2) of the
NEPA or its implementing regulations.
A copy of the EA and FONSI are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Conclusions
NMFS has determined that the
NEODS training operations, as
described in this document and in the
application for an IHA, will result in no
more than Level B harassment of
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and
Atlantic spotted dolphins and will have
no more than a negligible impact on
these stocks. The effects of the NEODS
training are expected to be limited to
short-term and localized TTS-related
behavioral changes, and these takes will
be at the lowest level practicable due to
incorporation of the mitigation
measures mentioned previously in this
document. With the application of the
mitigation measures, as well as the
potential density of dolphins in the area
of the NEODS training operations,
NMFS believes it highly unlikely that
the proposed action will result in any
injury or mortality of marine mammals.
Additionally, the NEODS training
operations will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammal stocks for subsistence
use, as there are no subsistence uses for
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic
spotted dolphins in Florida waters.
Authorization
NMFS has issued a 1–year IHA to
EAFB for the take of Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins,
by harassment, incidental to NEODS
training operations, which include up to
30 detonations of small C–4 charges per
year, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: August 23, 2005.
Donna Wieting,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–17224 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 082305D]
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; Public Meetings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
51347
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
convene public meetings.
DATES: The meetings will be held
September 12 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held
at the Wyndham Bourbon Orleans, 717
Orleans Street, New Orleans, LA 70116.
Council address: Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 2203
North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa,
FL 33607.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director,
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Council
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
1:30 p.m. Convene.
1:45 p.m. – 5 p.m. – Receive public
testimony on (a) Final Reef Fish
Amendment 18A/Environmental
Assessment (EA), (b) Final Red Grouper
Regulatory Amendment, and (c)
Exempted fishing permits (if any).
5 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. – Receive the Budget/
Personnel Committee Report.
5:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. – Receive the
Mackerel Management Committee
Report.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
8:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Receive the
joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management
Committees Report.
1 p.m. – 3 p.m. – Receive the Reef Fish
Management Committee Report.
3 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. – Receive the
Migratory Species Management
Committee Report.
3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. – Receive the joint
Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum
Committees Report.
4:30 p.m. – 5 p.m. – Receive the
Administrative Policy Committee
Report.
Friday, September 16, 2005
8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. – Receive the
Enforcement Reports.
8:45 a.m. – 9 a.m. – Receive the
Regional Administrator’s Report.
9 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. – Receive the State
Director’s Reports.
9:30 a.m. – 10 a.m. – Other Business.
10 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. – Election of Chair
and Vice-Chair.
Committee
Monday, September 12, 2005
8:30 a.m. – 12 noon – The Reef Fish
Management Committee will review
public hearing summaries, public
letters, Advisory Panel (AP)
30AUN1